WoeIsMe

are you saying they can't even explain how to do a quadruple bypass in 30 seconds, given the patient has diabetes, HIV, a nail stuck in his head, and is the other half of a perfectly healthy conjoined twin?

are you saying they can't even explain how to do a quadruple bypass in 30 seconds, given the patient has diabetes, HIV, a nail stuck in his head, and is the other half of a perfectly healthy conjoined twin?

LOL...that sounds about like some of the questions on that goofy test!

I would be willing to bet that the African Americans born in the US who went to medical school in the US have very comparable scores to the whites born in the US who went to school in the US.

...is unfortunately not true, or at least not true for law students. Black students have alarmingly high attrition rates and relatively low bar passage rates when compared to their white counterparts. For many pro-white, anti-AA, this adds fuel to the fire. Current indicators, however, suggest that this disparity is not due to minority students 'not being up to snuff' or some other such ridiculous argument, but rather due to these students being placed into institutions where their academic credentials put them at a significant disadvantage, relative to their peers. It's really a difficult issue, because these students are not likely to be able to attain high GPAs and LSATs (or MCATs) due to the myriad obstacles they face in obtaining a higher education. So they are given a 'bump' in the caliber of institution they attend, but as a result they all too often place very poorly in their class. Again, no easy answer.

maricutie

Current indicators, however, suggest that this disparity is not due to minority students 'not being up to snuff' or some other such ridiculous argument, but rather due to these students being placed into institutions where their academic credentials put them at a significant disadvantage, relative to their peers. It's really a difficult issue, because these students are not likely to be able to attain high GPAs and LSATs (or MCATs) due to the myriad obstacles they face in obtaining a higher education. So they are given a 'bump' in the caliber of institution they attend, but as a result they all too often place very poorly in their class. Again, no easy answer.

I remember quickly browsing this article, and wondering which schools they focused on. I say this because the "bump" that minorities usually get is most evident among the lower ranked schools, and less evident in higher ones. Anyone have a link to the actual article with the data tables still attached?

Also, not to change the subject, but the studies done have only foused on black and white students, not minorities in general. Given the disparate origins, history and economic standing of the ethnic groups that benefit from AA, I can't go as far as to say that such a study can be generalized. Not picking on you, it just seems that the majority of these recent AA threads are solely locked into that B&W construction of AA policies.

Here is an example: if after doing several large scale studies and a lot of statistical analysis you conclude that smoking causes lung cancer, you are not prejudiced against smoking. In fact, you have an intelligent and informed opinion. Your opinion is that there is a negative attribute associated with smoking, but just the fact that it is negative doesn't make you prejudiced.

Prejudice has to do with your methadology (i.e., not having a good one), not your conclusion.

In the case of race and IQ it appears that the people who have arrived at their conclusions without doing their homework are those who blithely assume, a priori, that there cannot be an IQ difference between the races. Those who actually do the analysis and conduct the studies and arrive at their conclusions in a rigorous manner are labelled "prejudiced" by the very people who are in fact more prejudiced. How ironic.

1. Would you care to define race.

2. Could you explain how there could be an evolutionary process that would preference one region over another in terms of intelligence. I can do that for skin color, lip size, and eye lid shape because these things are directly related to the environment but have yet to see how it could work with intelligence.

3. Could you explain why there are no observable genetic or neurological differences between people of different skin color.

It is already clear that there are other difference between people of different races. Here is one obvious example: skin color. There may well be many other differences between the races as well.

Why should we assume, a priori, that all races have the same average IQ? Also, how is it racist or prejudiced to come to this conclusion after conducting various studies and statistical analyses?

In the case of race and IQ it appears that the people who have arrived at their conclusions without doing their homework are those who blithely assume, a priori, that there cannot be an IQ difference between the races. Those who actually do the analysis and conduct the studies and arrive at their conclusions in a rigorous manner are labelled "prejudiced" by the very people who are in fact more prejudiced. How ironic.

Ok, now this has got to be flame. Have you read the book? have you read any of the criticms against it? For all of its claim as a scientific book, it sure does assume alot. First, what Herrnstein and Murray used to measure IQ is actually a measure of education as well as intelligence. Second, they resist the obvious inference that the test scores are measuring something other than intelligence. Third, while most of The Bell Curve's analysis was devoted to proving that IQ has more predictive power than parental "socio-economic status," the method that Herrnstein and Murray used to figure socioeconomic status seems designed to low-ball its influence.

I won't continue because there seems to be a lot more involving hardcore stats that I cannot claim to fully understand myself, but suffice to say: use a better example next time.

shiveringjenny

If this sort of thing actually interests you academically, there are a lot of resources out there.

I really like some of steve sailer's articles on the subject, to be honest. they are just so f-ing interesting. be forewarned-- his arguments can be kind of offensive if you aren't in the right mood. in fact, they can also be offensive if you are being perfectly open-minded.

people who beat the *&^% out of this dead horse fall into one of a few categories. among which, some people are racists, some people are contrarian, and some people are genuinely interested in the differences between different types of people. i think steve sailer falls very strongly into the 'genuine interest' category, and that is why i like his blog.

of course, he is a conservative, and therefore evil, so that is also something to consider upon deciding whether or not to read his stuff.

and, finally, i am not saying that i agree with what he has to say on many subjects-- i'm just saying that it is interesting.

Also, not to change the subject, but the studies done have only foused on black and white students, not minorities in general. Given the disparate origins, history and economic standing of the ethnic groups that benefit from AA, I can't go as far as to say that such a study can be generalized. Not picking on you, it just seems that the majority of these recent AA threads are solely locked into that B&W construction of AA policies.

You are certainly correct about the issue of other minorities. The reason I have confined my statements to b/w issues is because that is the only comparison that I have seen studies on and can speak intelligently of.

Most of the facts I have stated in these discussions have come from the Sander study:

I'll give you the same warning I gave Mobell: Its huge!! There is really a lot in it, though, and I think its pretty well done. I find this source much more useful than others, such as the Bell Curve (which I have read and am very familiar with), mostly due to the tone of the writing. It seems to me that Sander is genuinely trying to solve a problem and is out for the greater good of the minorities involved, while Herrnstein and Murray are largely trying to create controversy and sell more books. Just a personal opinion.

Here is an example: if after doing several large scale studies and a lot of statistical analysis you conclude that smoking causes lung cancer, you are not prejudiced against smoking. In fact, you have an intelligent and informed opinion. Your opinion is that there is a negative attribute associated with smoking, but just the fact that it is negative doesn't make you prejudiced.

Prejudice has to do with your methadology (i.e., not having a good one), not your conclusion.

In the case of race and IQ it appears that the people who have arrived at their conclusions without doing their homework are those who blithely assume, a priori, that there cannot be an IQ difference between the races. Those who actually do the analysis and conduct the studies and arrive at their conclusions in a rigorous manner are labelled "prejudiced" by the very people who are in fact more prejudiced. How ironic.

who are you arguing with?

let me reword my post.. IQ, the measure of intelligence is a MOVING TARGET, with several assumptions in place. the measure is NORMALIZED across several variables, with AGE and TIME being two of them. There are also several other variables it is NOT normalized against, race being one of them. It is also clear that given the same IQ tests to blacks of modern day and whites of 18th century, the black group would kick whitey's ass. So is this genetically determined? No. Is genetic race a possible factor? Yes possibly. Let's remove the correction for age and compare 80 year old whites with 23 year blacks.. what is your bet?

the point being that raw intelligence is a moving target, where the rate it moves differs for the entire population and clusters within the population. I'm certainly am not claiming there cannot be differences, but what I am saying is to examine carefully how you're producing the final IQ number and what factors the corrections are being made with.

Ok, now this has got to be flame. Have you read the book? have you read any of the criticms against it? For all of its claim as a scientific book, it sure does assume alot. First, what Herrnstein and Murray used to measure IQ is actually a measure of education as well as intelligence. Second, they resist the obvious inference that the test scores are measuring something other than intelligence. Third, while most of The Bell Curve's analysis was devoted to proving that IQ has more predictive power than parental "socio-economic status," the method that Herrnstein and Murray used to figure socioeconomic status seems designed to low-ball its influence.

I won't continue because there seems to be a lot more involving hardcore stats that I cannot claim to fully understand myself, but suffice to say: use a better example next time.

There are a lot of people who want to discredit this stuff because they don't like the conclusions. For many people, the studies and the methadology used in The Bell Curve, etc., just HAVE TO BE WRONG -- because they already know what the answer is. They will do anything, say anything, make up anything, and blow the tiniest flaw or inconsistency out of all reasonable proportion.

They don't approach the subject objectively, instead they go on a witch hunt to discredit these conclusions at all costs.

Agreed. Except that, if true, these are HUGE oversights on the part of Herrnstein and Murray, to the point that it really tears major holes in their conclusions. Seriously, even approching it with an open mind, these are big. That's why I asked if you'd read it; granted, I've only read parts, since it seems pretty dense, but I think the criticisms of it might actually be valid. And I haven't seen any kind of counter-arguments addressing these points.

Zooker -- when I downloaded it previously (before I lost it on my computer), I too was struck by his demeanor. I mean, he has a bi-racial daughter, for one. He really puts his money where his mouth is, so to speak. The ethnic studies minor in me says I like him